Price v. Midland Funding LLC

Background

Joan Price sued Midland Funding LLC and Messerli & Kramer, P.A. under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. She alleged that the defendants used a purported answer that did not belong to her and made false statements about costs and filing fees in an underlying debt-collection case. Price sought damages and attorneys’ fees.

The defendants offered Price a total judgment of $1,001, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to be agreed upon or determined by the court. Price accepted the offer, and the Clerk entered judgment in her favor on April 24, 2018. The parties did not agree on fees. Price’s lawyer initially requested $4,480 and later filed a motion seeking $6,080, including fees for preparing the fee request.

Deadline for the Fee Motion

The defendants argued that the fee motion was untimely because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 generally requires a fee request within 14 days after judgment. Price asked for permission to file a reply or, alternatively, to extend the deadline under Rule 6(b).

The court rejected Price’s argument that her notice accepting the offer substituted for a fee motion, but it granted an after-the-fact extension. The defendants’ offer expressly included reasonable attorneys’ fees, and the defendants knew Price intended to seek fees. The court found good cause and extended the deadline to the date Price filed the motion.

Fee Agreement

The defendants argued that Price’s fee agreement was void because it assigned her interest in awarded attorneys’ fees to her lawyer. The court disagreed. It found that the agreement reserved the lawyer’s right to fees expressly authorized by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and was essentially a permitted lien or contingency-fee arrangement. The court therefore rejected this reason for denying the fee motion.

Amount of Fees

The court used the lodestar method, which generally calculates a fee by multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate. It found that the requested hourly rate of $400 was reasonable based on counsel’s experience, consumer-law practice, work on more than 50 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims, supporting attorney testimony, and comparable rates in the Twin Cities.

The defendants challenged several categories of time, including work on the fee-waiver application, review of the related state-court case, work concerning the offer of judgment, drafting the complaint, administrative tasks, and preparation of the fee petition. The court found the challenged work necessary and reasonable. It also found that the state-court work was related to Price’s federal claims and that the fee-petition work was compensable.

The court calculated the fee as $400 multiplied by 15.2 hours, for a total of $6,080. It declined to increase or decrease that amount.

Order

The court granted Price’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, awarded Price attorneys’ fees of $6,080, and granted her Motion for Leave to File a Reply, or in the Alternative, to Amend Deadlines Pursuant to Rule 6. Judge Susan Richard Nelson entered the order.